linux-phytec-fsl

memcg: track children in soft limit excess to improve soft limit

Soft limit reclaim has to check the whole reclaim hierarchy while doing
the first pass of the reclaim.  This leads to a higher system time which
can be visible especially when there are many groups in the hierarchy.

This patch adds a per-memcg counter of children in excess.  It also
restores MEM_CGROUP_TARGET_SOFTLIMIT into mem_cgroup_event_ratelimit for a
proper batching.

If a group crosses soft limit for the first time it increases parent's
children_in_excess up the hierarchy.  The similarly if a group gets below
the limit it will decrease the counter.  The transition phase is recorded
in soft_contributed flag.

mem_cgroup_soft_reclaim_eligible then uses this information to better
decide whether to skip the node or the whole subtree.  The rule is simple.
 Skip the node with a children in excess or skip the whole subtree
otherwise.

This has been tested by a stream IO (dd if=/dev/zero of=file with
4*MemTotal size) which is quite sensitive to overhead during reclaim.  The
load is running in a group with soft limit set to 0 and without any limit.
 Apart from that there was a hierarchy with ~500, 2k and 8k groups (two
groups on each level) without any pages in them.  base denotes to the
kernel on which the whole series is based on, rework is the kernel before
this patch and reworkoptim is with this patch applied:

* Run with soft limit set to 0
Elapsed
0-0-limit/base: min: 88.21 max: 94.61 avg: 91.73 std: 2.65 runs: 3
0-0-limit/rework: min: 76.05 [86.2%] max: 79.08 [83.6%] avg: 77.84 [84.9%] std: 1.30 runs: 3
0-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 77.98 [88.4%] max: 80.36 [84.9%] avg: 78.92 [86.0%] std: 1.03 runs: 3
System
0.5k-0-limit/base: min: 34.86 max: 36.42 avg: 35.89 std: 0.73 runs: 3
0.5k-0-limit/rework: min: 43.26 [124.1%] max: 48.95 [134.4%] avg: 46.09 [128.4%] std: 2.32 runs: 3
0.5k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 46.98 [134.8%] max: 50.98 [140.0%] avg: 48.49 [135.1%] std: 1.77 runs: 3
Elapsed
0.5k-0-limit/base: min: 88.50 max: 97.52 avg: 93.92 std: 3.90 runs: 3
0.5k-0-limit/rework: min: 75.92 [85.8%] max: 78.45 [80.4%] avg: 77.34 [82.3%] std: 1.06 runs: 3
0.5k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 75.79 [85.6%] max: 79.37 [81.4%] avg: 77.55 [82.6%] std: 1.46 runs: 3
System
2k-0-limit/base: min: 34.57 max: 37.65 avg: 36.34 std: 1.30 runs: 3
2k-0-limit/rework: min: 64.17 [185.6%] max: 68.20 [181.1%] avg: 66.21 [182.2%] std: 1.65 runs: 3
2k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 49.78 [144.0%] max: 52.99 [140.7%] avg: 51.00 [140.3%] std: 1.42 runs: 3
Elapsed
2k-0-limit/base: min: 92.61 max: 97.83 avg: 95.03 std: 2.15 runs: 3
2k-0-limit/rework: min: 78.33 [84.6%] max: 84.08 [85.9%] avg: 81.09 [85.3%] std: 2.35 runs: 3
2k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 75.72 [81.8%] max: 78.57 [80.3%] avg: 76.73 [80.7%] std: 1.30 runs: 3
System
8k-0-limit/base: min: 39.78 max: 42.09 avg: 41.09 std: 0.97 runs: 3
8k-0-limit/rework: min: 200.86 [504.9%] max: 265.42 [630.6%] avg: 241.80 [588.5%] std: 29.06 runs: 3
8k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 53.70 [135.0%] max: 54.89 [130.4%] avg: 54.43 [132.5%] std: 0.52 runs: 3
Elapsed
8k-0-limit/base: min: 95.11 max: 98.61 avg: 96.81 std: 1.43 runs: 3
8k-0-limit/rework: min: 246.96 [259.7%] max: 331.47 [336.1%] avg: 301.32 [311.2%] std: 38.52 runs: 3
8k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 76.79 [80.7%] max: 81.71 [82.9%] avg: 78.97 [81.6%] std: 2.05 runs: 3

System time is increased by 30-40% but it is reduced a lot comparing to
kernel without this patch.  The higher time can be explained by the fact
that the original soft reclaim scanned at priority 0 so it was much more
effective for this workload (which is basically touch once and writeback).
 The Elapsed time looks better though (~20%).

* Run with no soft limit set
System
0-no-limit/base: min: 42.18 max: 50.38 avg: 46.44 std: 3.36 runs: 3
0-no-limit/rework: min: 40.57 [96.2%] max: 47.04 [93.4%] avg: 43.82 [94.4%] std: 2.64 runs: 3
0-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 40.45 [95.9%] max: 45.28 [89.9%] avg: 42.10 [90.7%] std: 2.25 runs: 3
Elapsed
0-no-limit/base: min: 75.97 max: 78.21 avg: 76.87 std: 0.96 runs: 3
0-no-limit/rework: min: 75.59 [99.5%] max: 80.73 [103.2%] avg: 77.64 [101.0%] std: 2.23 runs: 3
0-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 77.85 [102.5%] max: 82.42 [105.4%] avg: 79.64 [103.6%] std: 1.99 runs: 3
System
0.5k-no-limit/base: min: 44.54 max: 46.93 avg: 46.12 std: 1.12 runs: 3
0.5k-no-limit/rework: min: 42.09 [94.5%] max: 46.16 [98.4%] avg: 43.92 [95.2%] std: 1.69 runs: 3
0.5k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 42.47 [95.4%] max: 45.67 [97.3%] avg: 44.06 [95.5%] std: 1.31 runs: 3
Elapsed
0.5k-no-limit/base: min: 78.26 max: 81.49 avg: 79.65 std: 1.36 runs: 3
0.5k-no-limit/rework: min: 77.01 [98.4%] max: 80.43 [98.7%] avg: 78.30 [98.3%] std: 1.52 runs: 3
0.5k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 76.13 [97.3%] max: 77.87 [95.6%] avg: 77.18 [96.9%] std: 0.75 runs: 3
System
2k-no-limit/base: min: 62.96 max: 69.14 avg: 66.14 std: 2.53 runs: 3
2k-no-limit/rework: min: 76.01 [120.7%] max: 81.06 [117.2%] avg: 78.17 [118.2%] std: 2.12 runs: 3
2k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 62.57 [99.4%] max: 66.10 [95.6%] avg: 64.53 [97.6%] std: 1.47 runs: 3
Elapsed
2k-no-limit/base: min: 76.47 max: 84.22 avg: 79.12 std: 3.60 runs: 3
2k-no-limit/rework: min: 89.67 [117.3%] max: 93.26 [110.7%] avg: 91.10 [115.1%] std: 1.55 runs: 3
2k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 76.94 [100.6%] max: 79.21 [94.1%] avg: 78.45 [99.2%] std: 1.07 runs: 3
System
8k-no-limit/base: min: 104.74 max: 151.34 avg: 129.21 std: 19.10 runs: 3
8k-no-limit/rework: min: 205.23 [195.9%] max: 285.94 [188.9%] avg: 258.98 [200.4%] std: 38.01 runs: 3
8k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 161.16 [153.9%] max: 184.54 [121.9%] avg: 174.52 [135.1%] std: 9.83 runs: 3
Elapsed
8k-no-limit/base: min: 125.43 max: 181.00 avg: 154.81 std: 22.80 runs: 3
8k-no-limit/rework: min: 254.05 [202.5%] max: 355.67 [196.5%] avg: 321.46 [207.6%] std: 47.67 runs: 3
8k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 193.77 [154.5%] max: 222.72 [123.0%] avg: 210.18 [135.8%] std: 12.13 runs: 3

Both System and Elapsed are in stdev with the base kernel for all
configurations except for 8k where both System and Elapsed are up by 35%.
I do not have a good explanation for this because there is no soft reclaim
pass going on as no group is above the limit which is checked in
mem_cgroup_should_soft_reclaim.

Then I have tested kernel build with the same configuration to see the
behavior with a more general behavior.

* Soft limit set to 0 for the build
System
0-0-limit/base: min: 242.70 max: 245.17 avg: 243.85 std: 1.02 runs: 3
0-0-limit/rework min: 237.86 [98.0%] max: 240.22 [98.0%] avg: 239.00 [98.0%] std: 0.97 runs: 3
0-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 241.11 [99.3%] max: 243.53 [99.3%] avg: 242.01 [99.2%] std: 1.08 runs: 3
Elapsed
0-0-limit/base: min: 348.48 max: 360.86 avg: 356.04 std: 5.41 runs: 3
0-0-limit/rework min: 286.95 [82.3%] max: 290.26 [80.4%] avg: 288.27 [81.0%] std: 1.43 runs: 3
0-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 286.55 [82.2%] max: 289.00 [80.1%] avg: 287.69 [80.8%] std: 1.01 runs: 3
System
0.5k-0-limit/base: min: 251.77 max: 254.41 avg: 252.70 std: 1.21 runs: 3
0.5k-0-limit/rework min: 286.44 [113.8%] max: 289.30 [113.7%] avg: 287.60 [113.8%] std: 1.23 runs: 3
0.5k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 252.18 [100.2%] max: 253.16 [99.5%] avg: 252.62 [100.0%] std: 0.41 runs: 3
Elapsed
0.5k-0-limit/base: min: 347.83 max: 353.06 avg: 350.04 std: 2.21 runs: 3
0.5k-0-limit/rework min: 290.19 [83.4%] max: 295.62 [83.7%] avg: 293.12 [83.7%] std: 2.24 runs: 3
0.5k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 293.91 [84.5%] max: 294.87 [83.5%] avg: 294.29 [84.1%] std: 0.42 runs: 3
System
2k-0-limit/base: min: 263.05 max: 271.52 avg: 267.94 std: 3.58 runs: 3
2k-0-limit/rework min: 458.99 [174.5%] max: 468.31 [172.5%] avg: 464.45 [173.3%] std: 3.97 runs: 3
2k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 267.10 [101.5%] max: 279.38 [102.9%] avg: 272.78 [101.8%] std: 5.05 runs: 3
Elapsed
2k-0-limit/base: min: 372.33 max: 379.32 avg: 375.47 std: 2.90 runs: 3
2k-0-limit/rework min: 334.40 [89.8%] max: 339.52 [89.5%] avg: 337.44 [89.9%] std: 2.20 runs: 3
2k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 301.47 [81.0%] max: 319.19 [84.1%] avg: 307.90 [82.0%] std: 8.01 runs: 3
System
8k-0-limit/base: min: 320.50 max: 332.10 avg: 325.46 std: 4.88 runs: 3
8k-0-limit/rework min: 1115.76 [348.1%] max: 1165.66 [351.0%] avg: 1132.65 [348.0%] std: 23.34 runs: 3
8k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 403.75 [126.0%] max: 409.22 [123.2%] avg: 406.16 [124.8%] std: 2.28 runs: 3
Elapsed
8k-0-limit/base: min: 475.48 max: 585.19 avg: 525.54 std: 45.30 runs: 3
8k-0-limit/rework min: 616.25 [129.6%] max: 625.90 [107.0%] avg: 620.68 [118.1%] std: 3.98 runs: 3
8k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 420.18 [88.4%] max: 428.28 [73.2%] avg: 423.05 [80.5%] std: 3.71 runs: 3

Apart from 8k the system time is comparable with the base kernel while
Elapsed is up to 20% better with all configurations.

* No soft limit set
System
0-no-limit/base: min: 234.76 max: 237.42 avg: 236.25 std: 1.11 runs: 3
0-no-limit/rework min: 233.09 [99.3%] max: 238.65 [100.5%] avg: 236.09 [99.9%] std: 2.29 runs: 3
0-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 236.12 [100.6%] max: 240.53 [101.3%] avg: 237.94 [100.7%] std: 1.88 runs: 3
Elapsed
0-no-limit/base: min: 288.52 max: 295.42 avg: 291.29 std: 2.98 runs: 3
0-no-limit/rework min: 283.17 [98.1%] max: 284.33 [96.2%] avg: 283.78 [97.4%] std: 0.48 runs: 3
0-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 288.50 [100.0%] max: 290.79 [98.4%] avg: 289.78 [99.5%] std: 0.95 runs: 3
System
0.5k-no-limit/base: min: 286.51 max: 293.23 avg: 290.21 std: 2.78 runs: 3
0.5k-no-limit/rework min: 291.69 [101.8%] max: 294.38 [100.4%] avg: 292.97 [101.0%] std: 1.10 runs: 3
0.5k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 277.05 [96.7%] max: 288.76 [98.5%] avg: 284.17 [97.9%] std: 5.11 runs: 3
Elapsed
0.5k-no-limit/base: min: 294.94 max: 298.92 avg: 296.47 std: 1.75 runs: 3
0.5k-no-limit/rework min: 292.55 [99.2%] max: 294.21 [98.4%] avg: 293.55 [99.0%] std: 0.72 runs: 3
0.5k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 294.41 [99.8%] max: 301.67 [100.9%] avg: 297.78 [100.4%] std: 2.99 runs: 3
System
2k-no-limit/base: min: 443.41 max: 466.66 avg: 457.66 std: 10.19 runs: 3
2k-no-limit/rework min: 490.11 [110.5%] max: 516.02 [110.6%] avg: 501.42 [109.6%] std: 10.83 runs: 3
2k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 435.25 [98.2%] max: 458.11 [98.2%] avg: 446.73 [97.6%] std: 9.33 runs: 3
Elapsed
2k-no-limit/base: min: 330.85 max: 333.75 avg: 332.52 std: 1.23 runs: 3
2k-no-limit/rework min: 343.06 [103.7%] max: 349.59 [104.7%] avg: 345.95 [104.0%] std: 2.72 runs: 3
2k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 330.01 [99.7%] max: 333.92 [100.1%] avg: 332.22 [99.9%] std: 1.64 runs: 3
System
8k-no-limit/base: min: 1175.64 max: 1259.38 avg: 1222.39 std: 34.88 runs: 3
8k-no-limit/rework min: 1226.31 [104.3%] max: 1241.60 [98.6%] avg: 1233.74 [100.9%] std: 6.25 runs: 3
8k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 1023.45 [87.1%] max: 1056.74 [83.9%] avg: 1038.92 [85.0%] std: 13.69 runs: 3
Elapsed
8k-no-limit/base: min: 613.36 max: 619.60 avg: 616.47 std: 2.55 runs: 3
8k-no-limit/rework min: 627.56 [102.3%] max: 642.33 [103.7%] avg: 633.44 [102.8%] std: 6.39 runs: 3
8k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 545.89 [89.0%] max: 555.36 [89.6%] avg: 552.06 [89.6%] std: 4.37 runs: 3

and these numbers look good as well.  System time is around 100%
(suprisingly better for the 8k case) and Elapsed is copies that trend.

Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@openvz.org>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>